If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

what pres. obama is doing, and i support it, IF GWB or Romney or plug in a repub. were doing it ....... it'd be front page news and there'd be protests from progressives

giancarlo supporting assassin drones given his posting history is just one example of the hypocrisy

"intellectual honesty" requires ur response to be "you're right"

I think you missed the fact that what Bush was doing was grabbing up huge amounts of people at random and throwing them in blacklist prisons indefinitely, often with no evidence and no charges.. and then torturing them. That's what people on the left were outraged about, that and the fact that the entire reason for invading Iraq was a farce. There were no protests over GWB bombing terrorist training facilities in Afghanistan.

You're accusing the left of doing what you guys are doing right here on this very topic-- you didn't really have a problem with casualties of virtually any magnitude in unnecessary wars, provided that war was started by a Republican. No one here has said civilian casualties are a good thing. We have however said if we must strike at imminent threats or terrorist cells, drones do it with a lot less destruction and a lot less death than wholesale invading an entire country.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

Originally Posted by loki81

my concern over the drone program has very little to do with President Obama, at the root of it. he may have opened the door on making it legal to issue kill orders on American citizens without evidence or oversight, but I generally trust him not to abuse that.. but there's no guarantee that we'll never see another Nixon or GWB in office, and if Congress doesn't check this power now, it probably never will (or at least not until something catastrophic happens that brings more attention to it... see also: gun regulations)

I can understand the necessity of these drone strikes, and I'd definitely say they're favorable to sending troops in harms way. but like most liberals, I'm a fan of regulations the leaked memo basically gives the CIA the authority to declare anyone a terrorist and make up any vague threat they want. that needs to change. it seems batshit insane to me that there's more legal oversight in getting a wiretap on someone than putting them on a Kill List... like FISA had to be reigned in by Congress, at a minimum there should be an outside body (ideally a judicial court like FISA) that needs to approve the death sentences for American citizens before being added to the kill list, with evidence required for both their guilt and the immediate nature of whatever threat the CIA/military thinks they pose.

when you're on the same side of a foreign policy issue as Dick Cheney, it should at least give you pause.

Loki, I totally agree with you that no President should be able, without oversight or draw up criteria, to add anyone to a hit list. You have no argument from me on that.

But that's an ongoing discussion going back at LEAST as far as the Iraq War over Presidential powers and the categorization of enemy combatants or imminent dangers to the U.S., and yes, it's a discussion we should have. What I have found disingenuous in these threads-- and it's not in reference to you personally-- is that people who absolutely were cheerleaders for the Iraq War are now saying everyone should be outraged because drones have resulted in some innocent casualties. I find that dishonest to such an incredibly sick degree. We put around 100,000 civilians into their graves over a war that absolutely did not need to be fought and gained us nothing (well, everyone but Halliburton and people involved in natural resource distribution) and these same people were absolutely all for that, and now turn around and point fingers at me or Democrats here and say we support murdering children because of the drone program. That's absolute bullshit of an absolutely enormous magnitude.

As far as countries like Yemen go, the US is working with the government of that country to fight terrorism. Terrorists (including the supposed innocent American citizen and his son) get killed under the tacit authority of the government there. Constitutional protections do not extend to people who are an active threat to others. I've stated time and time again here - an example is police officers are legally allowed to shoot people who are pointing guns at them.

And by the way, I find it hard to believe that a 16 year old was in Yemen with his terrorist father studying international business at University of Sana'a. You don't get killed in a drone strike that killed known terrorists if you have "no links to any terrorist organization." [...] The target was another terrorist and he just happened to be with him and 6 of his friends.

They are targeting and killing people who attacked our country - either through planning and participating in terrorist attacks on our homeland or by fighting us on the battlefield. We're not just going in and randomly bombing places in random countries. [...] If they surround themselves with children and civilians, that's their fault for being too cowardly to fight and instead shoot some mortars at troops and then run back into Pakistan.

What would your response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 been? What country would you like the United States to be like since you're anti-US and anti-western nations? How would you go about addressing the threats the United States and her citizens face? Let's hear some ideas and not just a litany of complaints.

my concern over the drone program has very little to do with President Obama, at the root of it. he may have opened the door on making it legal to issue kill orders on American citizens without evidence or oversight, but I generally trust him not to abuse that.

When we invade countries that have no military seriously capable of even attempting to stop us...

[...] This position you're taking that somehow surgically striking at the terrorists themselves rather than invading the entire country is far more unethical is pretty brain numbingly stupid, and shows the legitimacy of your concern for human life when you'd prefer a method that gets tens of thousands of civilians slain just for getting in the way of a fight that is really only between us and terrorist cells, not the entire countries in which those cells may be located.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

These are not strikes against terrorists. They are strikes against "suspected militants." Any military age male is able to be killed. You would never let that fly if another country was doing that against the US. Is anyone calling for war either? No. People are calling for the US to stop its campaign of murder. Kill lists clearly are not working when they are ever expanding.

ALmost no American would tolerate almost anything we do in other countries being done to us.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

Why are gays so intellectually dishonest and lacking in logical abilities? When did this stupid granfalloon become a group of apologists for murder and war? It is more sad because many of the intellectually differently advantageds supporting this program claim to be liberal.

Now that we're done with ad hominem, let's move on.

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

And there are rules to such threats, child. The police cannot burn your house down because they believe you murdered someone. They cannot shoot you if they think you stole something. There has to be an imminent threat to the safety of the officer or the public. Obama does not believe in that. His administration says that anyone is threat regardless of the evidence to show that.

Constitutional protections do exist for those who are threat to others. Are you differently intellectually advantaged? Murderers have trial. They do not just shoot them wherever they are found. They are not even killed after trial in most cases.

First off old geezer, I am not your child. Second, al-Awlaki has been materially tied to numerous people who either attacked or attempted to attack Americans both here and overseas. That made him an imminent threat. I can stand with a gun to your head and you would be in imminent danger. I could stand there 1 minute or 30 years, and unless I either shoot you, drop my weapon, or am shot myself, you will still be in imminent danger during that whole period. al-Awlaki showed that he was willing to shoot and wasn't going to drop the weapon, so we did what would neutralize the threat - took him out. This guy was an imminent threat to the American public and was handled as such, your opinions not withstanding.

As stated before, Constitutional protections extend only to the point where they do not interfere with the rights of others. If one person's actions are violating the rights of another, including their right to life, then their rights are no longer in effect. Murderers who are caught not threatening people are sent to trial. Murderers caught in the process of murdering or attempting to murder people are generally killed on the spot.

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

His son had not been in contact with him for over 2 years. He died two weeks after his father. It was a separate strike. The US government claimed that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a "military-age male" so it could kill him--remember how he was a 21 year old male in reports? He was collateral damage for a strike against a known terororist. That was Ibrahim al-Banna. It was reported that he was killed in the strike. Turns out that we was not. al-Banna was not even there. As such, there is no "official" record of Abdulrahman's death. If he was a terrorist, then the US government would point out those links. It chooses to ignore the death because there is no evidence that any of those killed had any links to any terrorist group.

There is no reliable media source anywhere saying that al-Banna is still alive. Both the US and Yemeni governments have verified his death in that airstrike. The only ones saying he is not dead is an al Qaeda offshoot group but have shown nothing to indicate he is not dead. So yes, if you hang out with terrorists, you get killed. al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. This target was the media chief of that organization. Thus, this target was a terro

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

Bullshit. The drone program initially was attacking high level targets, but it has since moved on to killing low level foot soldiers and those suspected of being involved with terrorism. Or just being close to it. The US government kills under the presumption that people near suspected terrorists are up to no good. Or people doing things that may be bad. A group of people gathered? Blow that shit up. Kill them. They are a threat to your safety and liberty.

Cowardly? Cowardly is giving high school dropouts remote controlled weapons and having them bomb weddings. Cowardly is killing civilians. Americans are clearly at least as cowardly as those they are fighting--possibly more so.

The drone program still targets high level and active participants in terrorist organizations. It does not target foot soldiers, as they are more useful to exploit to get to higher targets. It would be nice for you to understand how the system works before attempting to cry out against it. The people around suspected terrorists die because they are around a suspected terrorist when a missile is shot at them. They are not targeted by the US, but missiles do produce a blast radius, which is why it is never a good idea to hang out with terrorists. So a group of people gathered? No don't blow them up. But a known terrorist hanging out with a group of people? Yes, blow that shit up.

And no. Cowardly is sending children in to a market or a military base with bombs strapped to them. Cowardly is firing on US troops and then hiding in a school, hospital or residential area in the hopes of not getting attacked back. Cowardly is hiding in a cave and sending poor, uneducated people out to fly airplanes into buildings to kill innocent people. If they want to fight us face-to-face, America will welcome them to the battlefield. If they want to hide in their caves and remote tribal regions where they think they are safe, they better get used to having missiles fired at them.

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

Child, Yemen and Somalia are not battlefields. Yemen was only allowed because the former ruler, who was killing his own people already, allowed the US in. Pakistan is only allowed because Pakistan has not said no. Pakistan does not authorize drone strikes. It did not even allow them. It acknowledged requests for air space. That is it.

If those countries don't want our help, they are free to ask us to leave. They have solicited help from the US. For someone who knows absolutely nothing of what goes on behind the scenes, you sure to pretend to have enough insight to make these sweeping judgments.

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

Rule of law, child. Rule of law. This is the liberal position. Troglodytes kill first and ask questions later. The US is supposed be about democracy. Trials. Rights. It is not. It is a bunch of blood thirsty ignoramuses. If Anwar Al-awlaki was guilty of some crime and some super terrorist, then the evidence against him should be presented. The attempt should be made to capture him. They knew where he was. Yemen was complicit in US fighting against him. No attempt to capture this terrorist mastermind to get information about his future attacks? Really?

Again, he had rights (including first amendment rights to oppose the US and its policies).

So you are in favor of someone being able to break the law and/or threaten others with impunity as long as they are able to evade capture? You are in favor of people arranging multiple terrorist attacks and for those attempts to keep coming as long as the perpetrator doesn't show up to a trial? No one has a first amendment right to do harm to others, either through direct involvement, organizational and financial support, or through verbal encouragement. The Supreme Court has ruled free speech rights do not extend to situations in which people attempt to rally others to violence and lawful disorder. This guy was ruled an imminent threat by the Department of Justice because he was involved in continued attempts to do harm to other Americans. They are the folks given the power to issue legal opinions within the framework of the Constitution and past Supreme Court rulings. They issued their opinion and the President acted on it. Until the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, then it stands as the practice of the military.

As for anything else you wrote, they are nothing but personal attacks and name calling. You did have some points that could be considered academic, but your continued use of words like "child" to attempt to elevate yourself to some superior intellectual stance while issuing ad hominem attacks to attempt to somehow weaken your opponents position indicate that you really have no good grasp of the material you are trying to argue and instead just resort to fallacious statements with the false idea that it somehow strengthens your hand.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

Second, al-Awlaki has been materially tied to numerous people who either attacked or attempted to attack Americans both here and overseas. That made him an imminent threat. I can stand with a gun to your head and you would be in imminent danger.

There are definitions of imminence. It is not a made up concept. you would not understand, but there is a thing referred to as US law. There is also international law.

As stated before, Constitutional protections extend only to the point where they do not interfere with the rights of others. If one person's actions are violating the rights of another, including their right to life, then their rights are no longer in effect. Murderers who are caught not threatening people are sent to trial. Murderers caught in the process of murdering or attempting to murder people are generally killed on the spot.

The allegations against al-Awlaki are weak at best (from information released). This terrorist mastermind dined at the Pentagon following 9.11. His status as an al-Qaeda agent was not very high. He was virtually unknown before the US wanted him dead (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/op...nsen.html?_r=0). He became very scary because of his contact with Americans who committed crimes or attempted them. He spoke English rather well, so he could theoretically "radicalize" other Americans.

Murderers are not killed on the spot. Do you get your knowledge of law enforcement from broadcast cop shows?

There is no reliable media source anywhere saying that al-Banna is still alive. Both the US and Yemeni governments have verified his death in that airstrike.

He may be dead. It is unknown. There was no confirmation of his death (there usually isn't; few are identified after strikes). It ultimately does not matter. The US killed youths because of it suspected that a terrorist was there. It had other opportunities, but had no trouble killing children. Not surprising, CIA officials have stated that many of the dead cannot be identified. They are presumed to be terrorists until evidence says otherwise.
[quote]The drone program still targets high level and active participants in terrorist organizations. It does not target foot soldiers, as they are more useful to exploit to get to higher targets. It would be nice for you to understand how the system works before attempting to cry out against it.[\quote]
Huh-wut? That is not what the news says. http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...3YQ_story.html

And no. Cowardly is sending children in to a market or a military base with bombs strapped to them.

Cowardly is also killing people you think may be bad and hiding behind your bloated military when the UN comes.

If those countries don't want our help, they are free to ask us to leave. They have solicited help from the US. For someone who knows absolutely nothing of what goes on behind the scenes, you sure to pretend to have enough insight to make these sweeping judgments.

Pakistan is the best example here. It does not allow US drone strikes. It has repeatedly told the US to change its policy. Pakistani leaders are under ever increasing pressure to force change (nearly three-quarters of Pakistani people see the US as the enemy). Nothing changes. The US does not listen. It murders. Its pathetic people cheer.

So you are in favor of someone being able to break the law and/or threaten others with impunity as long as they are able to evade capture? You are in favor of people arranging multiple terrorist attacks and for those attempts to keep coming as long as the perpetrator doesn't show up to a trial? No one has a first amendment right to do harm to others, either through direct involvement, organizational and financial support, or through verbal encouragement. The Supreme Court has ruled free speech rights do not extend to situations in which people attempt to rally others to violence and lawful disorder. This guy was ruled an imminent threat by the Department of Justice because he was involved in continued attempts to do harm to other Americans. They are the folks given the power to issue legal opinions within the framework of the Constitution and past Supreme Court rulings. They issued their opinion and the President acted on it. Until the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, then it stands as the practice of the military.

The US does not try to apprehend US citizens affiliated with terrorists groups. Look up news stories. There are none. The US either ignores (for very low level people) or murders.

Supreme court justification does not make it right. Not that it will even be considered. The DoJ memo cites supreme court cases that do not support its position. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld resulted in rights to due process being protected. It did not give the US a blanket approval to act with impunity.

I respond in a way that is appropriate to the level of argument posed by the individual to whom I am responding.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

Pakistan is the best example here. It does not allow US drone strikes. It has repeatedly told the US to change its policy. Pakistani leaders are under ever increasing pressure to force change (nearly three-quarters of Pakistani people see the US as the enemy). Nothing changes. The US does not listen. It murders. Its pathetic people cheer.

We're talking about the country that facilitated the movements and harboring of Osama Bin Laden, in fairness. Do you not feel the U.S. should have pursued Bin Laden?

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

We're talking about the country that facilitated the movements and harboring of Osama Bin Laden, in fairness. Do you not feel the U.S. should have pursued Bin Laden?

Allegedly. And we are also discussing a nation that is being bombed and invaded by a nation that has a global war of terror. On terror. Whatever.

bin Laden was a boogedyman. His post 9/11 role was exaggerated, as was his importance. From 2004 on, when he took credit for 9.11, public support for him had plummeted. He lost his appeal as a wrongly accused figure. People really did not like his actions.

and it was not about safety or security. It was about revenge and a "success" for a future campaign. He would never have been convicted for 9.11. The evidence was not there. He would have easily been convicted of the attack on the embassy in Kenya, but no one cares about that. Americans wanted "justice." that is only can come from killing (a death that was celebrated, even though, according to the story in the book released by that the guy, it was a war crime. Willfully killing an injured person--including combatants--is prohibited by international agreements).

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

There are definitions of imminence. It is not a made up concept. you would not understand, but there is a thing referred to as US law. There is also international law.

I do understand. Imminence does have a legal definition, and it varies depending on how it is used. You know who in the government is charged with interpreting the laws within the confines of the Constitution, the USC, and past Supreme Court decisions? (Hint: it's not you.) It's the Department of Justice who just so happened to have given the President the legal opinion that continued terrorist actions or attempted actions constitute an imminent threat.

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

The allegations against al-Awlaki are weak at best (from information released). This terrorist mastermind dined at the Pentagon following 9.11. His status as an al-Qaeda agent was not very high. He was virtually unknown before the US wanted him dead (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/op...nsen.html?_r=0). He became very scary because of his contact with Americans who committed crimes or attempted them. He spoke English rather well, so he could theoretically "radicalize" other Americans.[

Murderers are not killed on the spot. Do you get your knowledge of law enforcement from broadcast cop shows?

You must be talking about this article:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20...ntagon-months/
As you can see, he was invited as an effort to reach out to the Muslim community. The FBI did not share the intelligence they had on him with the Pentagon. It has the laundry list of terrorist attacks (including 9/11) he has been linked to. These aren't mere coincidences that this guy just happened to know and talk to these terrorists all of the time. He was well known by those who were investigating him, but like just about any investigation, they don't dump all of the details onto the public for review and approval.

And yes, murderers who are an imminent threat to others are generally killed or severely wounded. I didn't say all murderers were. I think you need to go back and re-read what I

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

He may be dead. It is unknown. There was no confirmation of his death (there usually isn't; few are identified after strikes). It ultimately does not matter. The US killed youths because of it suspected that a terrorist was there. It had other opportunities, but had no trouble killing children. Not surprising, CIA officials have stated that many of the dead cannot be identified. They are presumed to be terrorists until evidence says otherwise.

That's funny since both the US and Yemeni governments said he was killed in the airstrike. It's also funny because if there was no way to identify the bodies, how do they know everyone else killed was a youth? How do you know the US had other opportunities? How do you know al-Awlaki's son wasn't consorting with terrorists (it seems likely given he was killed with one)? You seem to be making a lot of wild guesses based on your personal biases with nothing but opinion pieces to back them up.

It also says at the end of that article that US sources say that the strikes are hitting important al-Qaeda operatives. It also states that the data they use to make these claims is "a blurry picture at best" based mostly on Pakistani news claims and anonymous US sources. Basically, like any good tort doctor, you can find an article anywhere to support the point you want to make. However, I would try to find one that doesn't admit in the article the data and sources they used are "blurry at best."

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

Cowardly is also killing people you think may be bad and hiding behind your bloated military when the UN comes.

The UN? How did they even get into this? I've not seen one person charged with war crimes. Now I'm sure you'll come back with some response like "well they are too afraid to charge anyone with war crimes," but at that point, you seem to be going against your own stance of judging someone guilty before charges or a trial.

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

Pakistan is the best example here. It does not allow US drone strikes. It has repeatedly told the US to change its policy. Pakistani leaders are under ever increasing pressure to force change (nearly three-quarters of Pakistani people see the US as the enemy). Nothing changes. The US does not listen. It murders. Its pathetic people cheer.

How do you know what conversations go on between Pakistan and the US? I don't know if you know this, but after year 4 in Afghanistan, the Pakistani government went on this huge propaganda tear where they would publicly rebuke the US for anything it did in Pakistan but then turn around and ask for more help privately. Pakistan loves us blowing up their terrorists more than we do. It's less for them to deal with internally. They just have to maintain a public opposition so their new government isn't overthrown next year.

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

The US does not try to apprehend US citizens affiliated with terrorists groups. Look up news stories. There are none. The US either ignores (for very low level people) or murders.

Supreme court justification does not make it right. Not that it will even be considered. The DoJ memo cites supreme court cases that do not support its position. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld resulted in rights to due process being protected. It did not give the US a blanket approval to act with impunity.

I respond in a way that is appropriate to the level of argument posed by the individual to whom I am responding.

Supreme Court justification does make it right per the Constitution. You also misread the opinion in regards to the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The Supreme Court did rule that the US Government has a right to detain US citizens as enemy combatants if so authorized by Congress, which it is in the Authorization for Use of Military Force. You should read the whole 16-page opinion and the whole of the referenced Supreme Court cases and not rely on the snippets used in various "news" sources.

I have provided you a well-thought out and adult-level argument. You have responded several times in childish ways, referring to me as child several times as well as using ad hominem attacks more than once. The onus is on you to act like an adult when someone speaks to you as one.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

Allegedly. And we are also discussing a nation that is being bombed and invaded by a nation that has a global war of terror. On terror. Whatever.

bin Laden was a boogedyman. His post 9/11 role was exaggerated, as was his importance. From 2004 on, when he took credit for 9.11, public support for him had plummeted. He lost his appeal as a wrongly accused figure. People really did not like his actions.

and it was not about safety or security. It was about revenge and a "success" for a future campaign. He would never have been convicted for 9.11. The evidence was not there. He would have easily been convicted of the attack on the embassy in Kenya, but no one cares about that. Americans wanted "justice." that is only can come from killing (a death that was celebrated, even though, according to the story in the book released by that the guy, it was a war crime. Willfully killing an injured person--including combatants--is prohibited by international agreements).

.... I don't see how anything you've said is a reason he was not someone the U.S. had a duty or obligation to try to bring to justice. I mean yeah, I realize, his "usefulness" i.e. giving us another Pearl Harbor as the pretext for feeding Iraq to our military industrial complex, was at an end. But he still planned an event that killed 2 thousand people and the concept that we should have just let him wander around indefinitely is, at best, bizarre.

I can't help but notice that you did not answer my question. I guess it conflicted too much with your position of defending Pakistan's sovereignty in your anti-drone argument.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

You have provided nothing be apologetics and appeals to authority.

"B-b-but the DoJ says that killing is okay."
"There is no clear proof that the US is killing civilians."
"The drone strikes are effective; Pakistan are lying!"
"How do you know that he was not a terrorist?"

The government prevents information from being released. That is what it does. That is also why information is so hard to come by. News that is released provides for the

And regarding the young al-Awlaki. It is actually rather clear that he was not involved with terrorism. How? The government does not acknowledge his death. If he was bad, then it would state that. It does not. I does not have a record of his killing. It did when he was a 21 year old militant. Not so much now.

The UN has inquired into US military action since the beginning of the war on terror. Neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration have been forthcoming with details. It is not the only government doing this either. Israel has refused cooperate with the UN over these strikes.

I get it. You believe that your shitty nation has a right to do whatever it wants. This is fine. It has the biggest guns. It can do whatever it wants. That does not make it any less evil. It does not make your any less complicit either. History will not look kindly on the US.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

This is what 100,000 people looks like. This is approximately the number of people killed as a result of the Iraq War.

As we shriek and screech about how completely horrific the use of drones are perhaps it's worth using just a tiny bit of proportion to understand the cost of ground invasions in terms of a human price tag.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

This is a partial quote, NOT taken out of context,
it is exhibited as part and parcel of 'itsmejeff contributions
to CE&P and thus to the JUB/Jubbers.

Pakistan is the best example here. It does not allow US drone strikes. It has repeatedly told the US to change its policy. Pakistani leaders are under ever increasing pressure to force change (nearly three-quarters of Pakistani people see the US as the enemy). Nothing changes. The US does not listen. It murders. Its pathetic people cheer.

It is JMHO (based on his posts and his empty profile) that to all appearances he is a vicious
troll like entity that is incapable of making posts with out demeaning other members and
spewing his obvious and irrationally excessive hatred of the USA and its people.
It is not my place to recommend Banning of a member.

I have long eschewed the ignore function.
So, until he leaves or is banned,
I will scroll past any of his postings.

This is what 100,000 people looks like. This is approximately the number of people killed as a result of the Iraq War.

As we shriek and screech about how completely horrific the use of drones are perhaps it's worth using just a tiny bit of proportion to understand the cost of ground invasions in terms of a human price tag.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

Actually Bosnia was an excellent example of accomplishing the mission without over extending your mission. But I know it was a democratic leadership so must be bad... no accounting for the decades it takes military leaders to get to where they are in the food chain. However, you are completely correct Jack, had we possessed drone technology we could have killed much less to accomplish the same goal. Just imagine Jack if the greatest generation had drone. They might not have killed the millions of civilians that were bombed into oblivion.... might not.

I see we have a Bilderberg guy amongst us again....someone alert Ambrocious because allegedly Afghanistan was involved... lol. Amusing.

Chancey is back and with a new term for people.... yay or is that yawn??? yep yawn...

Lefty once again points out the sage truth. You may not think it is your place but don't hold your breath. If other members xenophobic rants get a voice at the table then so do the itinerant ramblings of a disgruntled and rejected conspiracy theorist. TBH lefty I dig that the ignorant can post and have a voice. It reminds me that those folks exist. I get to hear the right wing loons everyday because I live in Kansas, so i need a reminder of the left wing loons.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

You have provided nothing be apologetics and appeals to authority.

"B-b-but the DoJ says that killing is okay."
"There is no clear proof that the US is killing civilians."
"The drone strikes are effective; Pakistan are lying!"
"How do you know that he was not a terrorist?"

The government prevents information from being released. That is what it does. That is also why information is so hard to come by. News that is released provides for the

And regarding the young al-Awlaki. It is actually rather clear that he was not involved with terrorism. How? The government does not acknowledge his death. If he was bad, then it would state that. It does not. I does not have a record of his killing. It did when he was a 21 year old militant. Not so much now.

The UN has inquired into US military action since the beginning of the war on terror. Neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration have been forthcoming with details. It is not the only government doing this either. Israel has refused cooperate with the UN over these strikes.

I get it. You believe that your shitty nation has a right to do whatever it wants. This is fine. It has the biggest guns. It can do whatever it wants. That does not make it any less evil. It does not make your any less complicit either. History will not look kindly on the US.

So your basic argument is that because there is a lack of information, it supports your position that everything you say is right? At least I base my opinion on facts that have come out. Everything I have claimed and the information I have based my claims on is either codified in US law or has been corroborated by multiple sources. It is fallacious to say that you must be right because there is no evidence you have proving you wrong.

The US keeps secrets to protect its methods and because there are things the public doesn't need to know. What methods they use to locate, target, and terminate people that are enemies on a battlefield doesn't need to be known by everyone. There is nothing you or anyone else could do with that information.

Your argument regarding al-Awlaki's son doesn't even make sense. It is clear he wasn't involved in terrorism because the government didn't acknowledge his death (which it did by the way, which is why you have your quotes you use talking about responsible fathers and all of that)?

And yes, I do believe that my nation should be able to defend itself against those that wish to do it harm without having to jump through endless hoops and red tape. If someone who is a stated member of a terrorist organization hiding in another country is a threat to the nation, then it should be the expectation that that person should be able to be eliminated as a threat without having to go through years of trials or multiple attempts to apprehend them from hostile areas.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

Your argument regarding al-Awlaki's son doesn't even make sense. It is clear he wasn't involved in terrorism because the government didn't acknowledge his death (which it did by the way, which is why you have your quotes you use talking about responsible fathers and all of that)?

And yes, I do believe that my nation should be able to defend itself against those that wish to do it harm without having to jump through endless hoops and red tape. If someone who is a stated member of a terrorist organization hiding in another country is a threat to the nation, then it should be the expectation that that person should be able to be eliminated as a threat without having to go through years of trials or multiple attempts to apprehend them from hostile areas.

No, it has no record of his death. That is the official position. Gibbs make a comment based on a question posed to him (and boy was his response moronic). It was not an official government response. The government initially claimed that al-Awlaki was a 21 year old militant. After it was determined that he was not, the government made no further statement about his death. His death is not a matter of record any longer. He was never linked to terrorism. He was not called a militant. He is just dead.

You are a nationalist who will defend "your" nation to the death. That is sad. You truly believe that geography gives your state a right to engage in a campaign of terror.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

And yes, I do believe that my nation should be able to defend itself against those that wish to do it harm without having to jump through endless hoops and red tape. If someone who is a stated member of a terrorist organization hiding in another country is a threat to the nation, then it should be the expectation that that person should be able to be eliminated as a threat without having to go through years of trials or multiple attempts to apprehend them from hostile areas.

Sums it up for me as well. If the sole concern is "there should be parameters under which we establish who qualifies as these threads", that's perfectly valid. But the more general gist I'm getting is we're supposed to accept that drones are an outrage compared to the alternative-- troops on the ground or ground wars or occupations to get at these terrorist cells, and that's pretty ridiculous.

Or another interpretation, Obama's doing it so we didn't mind the Iraq War but we're mad about this.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

People in the military are not tough. they are dumb psychopaths willing to kill anyone solely based on the belief that their nation is right.

Have you read any of his posts? If his IQ is above 30 it's not much above the number quoted. Besides, what's his excuse now for not joining up and fighting hand to hand (or "personalize" the war) as he likes to put it?

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

People in the military are not tough. they are dumb psychopaths willing to kill anyone solely based on the belief that their nation is right.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

Originally Posted by JayHawk

Actually Bosnia was an excellent example of accomplishing the mission without over extending your mission. But I know it was a democratic leadership so must be bad... no accounting for the decades it takes military leaders to get to where they are in the food chain. However, you are completely correct Jack, had we possessed drone technology we could have killed much less to accomplish the same goal. Just imagine Jack if the greatest generation had drone. They might not have killed the millions of civilians that were bombed into oblivion.... might not.

I see we have a Bilderberg guy amongst us again....someone alert Ambrocious because allegedly Afghanistan was involved... lol. Amusing.

Chancey is back and with a new term for people.... yay or is that yawn??? yep yawn...

Lefty once again points out the sage truth. You may not think it is your place but don't hold your breath. If other members xenophobic rants get a voice at the table then so do the itinerant ramblings of a disgruntled and rejected conspiracy theorist. TBH lefty I dig that the ignorant can post and have a voice. It reminds me that those folks exist. I get to hear the right wing loons everyday because I live in Kansas, so i need a reminder of the left wing loons.

You're right about Bosnia - even a blind squirrel ................

Living in Kansas is your choice right? Living in an all white neighborhood is your choice right?

Complaining about right wing loons when it's your decision to live among them is sorta silly no ?

the new "term" is "bandwagon" - it's actually part of a recent post and study by corny i believe

unlike the bandwagoners or is it bandwagoneers - not sure - i read it

the b'ers don't even read posts or links - they post "AS IF" - and go on their merry way

drones like iphones are technology - some kill some give u access to the internet

drone use would be happening with obama or bush or romney or biden or hills or ........ u get the idea

it's the new shiny toy that saves american military lives - while creating problems elsewhere

I get it .. if Obama does anything you will obtain an opposite position and if one does not exist you will contrive one.....

I came to Kansas on behalf of the US Navy and serving at the pleasure of the President... not that he was involved directly but the point is that I came here under orders. I know you like to define things to suit your cause but orders are orders.

I don't live in an 'all white' neighborhood in Kansas. I live in one of the areas that has developed the most diversity for the entire region. Which is in fact one of the reasons I moved here... it better represents the diverse life I have lived around the world. Now diversity is still 86% white in Kansas but it is what it is.... they still have great food round here and some of the best middle eastern food I have come across.... but I digress... I was telling you how hopelessly incorrect all of your suppositions are in the quoted post.

A good portion of your post is you coming to the reality that technology exist. Congrats and welcome to the future.

The final statement is quite possibly the most incorrect thing you have ever posted. You do it continually in every thread so maybe 'ever' is a misuse of the word. You constantly maintain that because the other posters have an opinion different than you; they must mindless drones (pardon the pun). Problem there is people are entitled to their opinions. Care to offer an olive branch to the CoC and address the issues and not the posters? (This is a response BTW and not retaliation; it is my fervent hope that someday you might ACTUALLY take something onboard and learn to be a better poster)

The only mindlessness comes when you unsuccessfully employ false logic to justify your childish rants about the 80% or the Ball Lickers or the B'ers. The sad truth is not only is the logic easily seen through, devoid of any real opinion, and incredibly repetitive but, in your case, always has to resort to a childish name calling. (Reference the aforementioned list of monikers you have abused in the past)

Is it impossible for you to post your opinions on a matter without characterizing everyone else as your only point? Reality is that most people come here to share opinions or maybe gain new insight. You possess very little of both of late. SO while what you post may make you feel like a big man inside; we all see the insecurity.

Perhaps you learn best through interpretive dance or song. While I cannot provide the former, the latter is already built just for you. (Emphasis mine)

Weep for yourself, my man,
You'll never be what is in your heart
Weep Little Lion Man,
You're not as brave as you were at the startRate yourself and rake yourself,
Take all the courage you have left
Wasted on fixing all the problems
That you made in your own head

But it was not your fault but mine
And it was your heart on the line
I really fucked it up this time
Didn't I, my dear?
Didn't I, my...

Tremble for yourself, my man,
You know that you have seen this all beforeTremble Little Lion Man,
You'll never settle any of your scores
Your grace is wasted in your face,
Your boldness stands alone among the wreck
Now learn from your mother or else spend your days Biting your own neck

But it was not your fault but mine
And it was your heart on the line
I really fucked it up this time
Didn't I, my dear? (x2)

Didn't I, my dear?

Now? Didn't I my Dear??

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

Originally Posted by JayHawk

The final statement is quite possibly the most incorrect thing you have ever posted. You do it continually in every thread so maybe 'ever' is a misuse of the word. You constantly maintain that because the other posters have an opinion different than you; they must mindless drones (pardon the pun). Problem there is people are entitled to their opinions. Care to offer an olive branch to the CoC and address the issues and not the posters? (This is a response BTW and not retaliation; it is my fervent hope that someday you might ACTUALLY take something onboard and learn to be a better poster)

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

Originally Posted by JayHawk

I get it .. if Obama does anything you will obtain an opposite position and if one does not exist you will contrive one.....

I came to Kansas on behalf of the US Navy and serving at the pleasure of the President... not that he was involved directly but the point is that I came here under orders. I know you like to define things to suit your cause but orders are orders.

I don't live in an 'all white' neighborhood in Kansas. I live in one of the areas that has developed the most diversity for the entire region. Which is in fact one of the reasons I moved here... it better represents the diverse life I have lived around the world. Now diversity is still 86% white in Kansas but it is what it is.... they still have great food round here and some of the best middle eastern food I have come across.... but I digress... I was telling you how hopelessly incorrect all of your suppositions are in the quoted post.

A good portion of your post is you coming to the reality that technology exist. Congrats and welcome to the future.

The final statement is quite possibly the most incorrect thing you have ever posted. You do it continually in every thread so maybe 'ever' is a misuse of the word. You constantly maintain that because the other posters have an opinion different than you; they must mindless drones (pardon the pun). Problem there is people are entitled to their opinions. Care to offer an olive branch to the CoC and address the issues and not the posters? (This is a response BTW and not retaliation; it is my fervent hope that someday you might ACTUALLY take something onboard and learn to be a better poster)

The only mindlessness comes when you unsuccessfully employ false logic to justify your childish rants about the 80% or the Ball Lickers or the B'ers. The sad truth is not only is the logic easily seen through, devoid of any real opinion, and incredibly repetitive but, in your case, always has to resort to a childish name calling. (Reference the aforementioned list of monikers you have abused in the past)

Is it impossible for you to post your opinions on a matter without characterizing everyone else as your only point? Reality is that most people come here to share opinions or maybe gain new insight. You possess very little of both of late. SO while what you post may make you feel like a big man inside; we all see the insecurity.

Perhaps you learn best through interpretive dance or song. While I cannot provide the former, the latter is already built just for you. (Emphasis mine)

Now? Didn't I my Dear??

at the pleasure of the president sounds like hillary saving hundreds of thousands of lives in africa

your place of residence sounds very diverse indeed with all those right wing loons around u

can't imagine if it wasn't diverse what it would be like

but i get it - u took orders

as for COC, when u practice what u preach i will listen - but i it's hard to imagine

and last u commented to me, u penned a missive about me in a basement and living a lie - that the mods deleted but left u to slink about

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

The Navy in Kansas ....

JH, I know something about Kansas. You live in a county that was designed as a white only county -- your county is for white people the county north of you, Wyandotte county, is for the colored people. Only non-white people in Johnson county are professionals -- all the minority day workers are bussed in from other places around the metro.

The large amount of innocents killed by the sterile bombing in Bosnian War someone has been forgotten -- the left and media would rather focus on Iraq.

Diversity for Johnson countians is when they drive to watch a Royals or Chiefs game and run the risk of being around black people.

Originally Posted by JayHawk

I get it .. if Obama does anything you will obtain an opposite position and if one does not exist you will contrive one.....

I came to Kansas on behalf of the US Navy and serving at the pleasure of the President... not that he was involved directly but the point is that I came here under orders. I know you like to define things to suit your cause but orders are orders.

I don't live in an 'all white' neighborhood in Kansas. I live in one of the areas that has developed the most diversity for the entire region. Which is in fact one of the reasons I moved here... it better represents the diverse life I have lived around the world. Now diversity is still 86% white in Kansas but it is what it is.... they still have great food round here and some of the best middle eastern food I have come across.... but I digress... I was telling you how hopelessly incorrect all of your suppositions are in the quoted post.

A good portion of your post is you coming to the reality that technology exist. Congrats and welcome to the future.

The final statement is quite possibly the most incorrect thing you have ever posted. You do it continually in every thread so maybe 'ever' is a misuse of the word. You constantly maintain that because the other posters have an opinion different than you; they must mindless drones (pardon the pun). Problem there is people are entitled to their opinions. Care to offer an olive branch to the CoC and address the issues and not the posters? (This is a response BTW and not retaliation; it is my fervent hope that someday you might ACTUALLY take something onboard and learn to be a better poster)

The only mindlessness comes when you unsuccessfully employ false logic to justify your childish rants about the 80% or the Ball Lickers or the B'ers. The sad truth is not only is the logic easily seen through, devoid of any real opinion, and incredibly repetitive but, in your case, always has to resort to a childish name calling. (Reference the aforementioned list of monikers you have abused in the past)

Is it impossible for you to post your opinions on a matter without characterizing everyone else as your only point? Reality is that most people come here to share opinions or maybe gain new insight. You possess very little of both of late. SO while what you post may make you feel like a big man inside; we all see the insecurity.

Perhaps you learn best through interpretive dance or song. While I cannot provide the former, the latter is already built just for you. (Emphasis mine)

Re: Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

The Navy in Kansas ....

JH, I know something about Kansas. You live in a county that was designed as a white only county -- your county is for white people the county north of you, Wyandotte county, is for the colored people. Only non-white people in Johnson county are professionals -- all the minority day workers are bussed in from other places around the metro.

The large amount of innocents killed by the sterile bombing in Bosnian War someone has been forgotten -- the left and media would rather focus on Iraq.

Diversity for Johnson countians is when they drive to watch a Royals or Chiefs game and run the risk of being around black people.

Whatever you say sweet pea. I, as you say, know nothing of the area BUT I possess these light absorbing head sponges that show me what each area looks like and what they contain. Missouri and particularly your part is substantially more white. Whats more the Misery side of the border is where Blacks were isolated to one side of the city. They even have a museum dedicated to remembering such an atrocity. However this is not 1960 nor is it 1860. Jayhawks don't maraud Missouri and black folks can live where they like. This area was created to keep Jews out as well and yet I live minutes from a synagogue. How is that possible ? Do all those Jewish folks bus in to go to church? I didn't think so.

Your world view and the views you push here seem to be based in 1960 at a minimum if not 1860 which would deny you the ability to understand drone usage and the lives it saves. Likewise you have no military experience so your simply postulating based on john wayne movies and your personal idea of who should die and how. it has no bearing in the future of this country nor in this topic. But hey I will solemnly swear to continue making it my lifes work to ensure you have the freedom of such inane expression.

Happy VD to you.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.